IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAAY THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7963 OF 2012
Between:
Namala Naresh … Petitioner/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy Smt.B.Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7963 OF 2012
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash Proceedings in CC.No. 312 of 2009 on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur district, for alleged offences under section 417, 420, 493 of IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that though charge sheet is filed for offence under section 417, 420 and 493 of IPC but charge is framed against the petitioner for offence under section 493 IPC only and as per DNA report the contention of complainant that she begot a female child through petitioner is not accepted, therefore, section 493 IPC is not attracted. She submitted that there is absolutely no material attracting ingredients of either section 417, 420 or 493 IPC and continuation of proceedings against petitioner amount to abuse of process of court.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the age of victim is only 19 years and when an alternative remedy of filing discharge petition is available to the petitioner, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. According to prosecution, petitioner developed acquaintance with the defacto complainant, which ultimately turned into ‘love’ and due to which he developed physical contact with her. According to defacto complainant, on account of physical contact, she became pregnant.
7. One of the objection of advocate for petitioner is that on 19/03/2008 at 04:00 a.m. when she had labour pains, she was moved to hospital and there she delivered a female child and according to the witnesses i.e., senior paternal uncle and cousin of the victim, they came to know about the pregnancy only on 19/03/2008 and that cannot be accepted because by that date the defacto complainant got labour pains and delivered a female child by Dr. Shakeela Sreedhar. Now the objection of advocate for petitioner is that since the version of material witnesses is not in conformity with D.N.A report, the allegation of cheating her or inducing her cannot be accepted. In this case, Police after examining eight witnesses found that there is prima facie material for alleged offences against the petitioner.
8. According to Section 493 of IPC if a man causes any woman, who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married and cohabits with her is an offence. Here the specific allegation of defacto complainant is by inducing her that he would marry defacto complainant, petitioner developed physical contacts and made her pregnant and subsequently he has not fulfilled his promise.
9. In PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU V/s.
KOVVURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND ORS
[1]
, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at Para No.10 as follows:
10. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code [vide Kavita V. State, 2000 Crl.LJ 315 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (1) ALD [Crl.] 842 )SC) = (2003) 4 SCC 675 = AIR 2003 SC 1386 = 2003 AIR SCW 1824). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
10. Here from the material papers, trial court already framed charge which indicates that learned Magistrate after applying his judicial mind found that there is prima facie material against petitioner. The contentions raised now are defences available to petitioner, which cannot be decided in a 482 Cr.P.C. petition. Further when charge is framed it was not challenged. There is a remedy available to petitioner to challenge the charge and the same is not availed.
11. From the above referred observation of Supreme Court, it is clear that discretionary power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and not in all cases. On a perusal of the material available on record, I am of the view that this is not a exceptional case particularly when the petitioner induced a young girl of 19 years, developed physical contact and enjoyed her on the ground of false promise of marrying her, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
23/7/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7963 OF 2012 Circulation No.85 Date: 23 /07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
[1] ) 2011 [2] ALD (Crl.) 948 [SC]